BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 85
  1. #71
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Undertaking private security operations somewhere in the Human Sphere
    Posts
    5,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tisroc View Post
    So... someone disagrees with you so the thread needs to be locked?!
    No tisroc, I suggest the thread get locked because they are all just posting the same thing back and forth repeatedly (for 7 pages now) . NO ONE is changing their minds here.

    So go pick a fight somewhere else
    Morbid Angels:http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?7100-Morbid-angel-WIP
    I probably come across as a bit of an ***, don't worry I just cannot abide stupid.

  2. #72

    Default

    Indeed.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  3. #73
    Occuli Imperator
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Mercia
    Posts
    18,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tynskel View Post
    no, look at the Tyrant Guard Entry— as if it were an IC. That means go to the IC section and apply the IC rules—for this action. You replace the rules.

    And that is my point: GW is saying—it is *that thing*. Not *anything* else.
    "as if it were an IC", this is not relevant it is different language. I agree that if it were to use "as if it were" or "count-as" then yes, fine. But that is not the case.

    What rules are being replaced? None. Walkers use the same basic rules as infantry movement, but it does not change it's unit type because it is not replacing anything. Nor do infantry movement rules affect the unit type in any way.

    Where does it say that infantry can ignore impassible terrain?
    Fan of Fuggles | Derailment of the Wolfpack of Horsemen | In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

  4. #74
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Durham, NH
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfshade View Post
    "as if it were an IC", this is not relevant it is different language. I agree that if it were to use "as if it were" or "count-as" then yes, fine. But that is not the case.

    What rules are being replaced? None. Walkers use the same basic rules as infantry movement, but it does not change it's unit type because it is not replacing anything. Nor do infantry movement rules affect the unit type in any way.

    Where does it say that infantry can ignore impassible terrain?
    You are not getting my point!
    GW uses different language every single time.
    That's why I said:

    look at the Black Sword Entry for Space Marines
    Look at the Tyrant Guard Entry for Tyranids
    Look at the Crimson Slaughter Entry for Possessed.

    Every single time, the phrasing is different, but the meaning is exactly the same: replace the rules. That is what 'counts as' means. That is the convention that has gone on for 20 years that I have been playing 40k. Look at all the 'mature' FAQs from 6th, 5th, 4th editions! Every single time, the rule is taken to be 'replace'.

    Also. There is no mention of Vehicle in the Infantry rules. Since you replace the rules, you are *not* a vehicle. Because that would be a 'rules conflict'. GW avoids rules conflicts by cutting pasting rules in place where there *is* a conflict.
    QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "

  5. #75
    Occuli Imperator
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Mercia
    Posts
    18,062

    Default

    Ok, let us try again.

    What rules are being replaced?

    And, Where does infantry movement rules allow infantry to pass impassable terrain?

    As-if, counts-as, etc are not the same as using the rules as stated elsewhere.

    Fortifications are set up using the same rules as the rest of the army, does that mean it becomes infantry during deployment so you can't deploy any unit on it as that would be violating the 1" rule?
    Fan of Fuggles | Derailment of the Wolfpack of Horsemen | In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

  6. #76
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Durham, NH
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfshade View Post
    Ok, let us try again.

    What rules are being replaced?

    And, Where does infantry movement rules allow infantry to pass impassable terrain?

    As-if, counts-as, etc are not the same as using the rules as stated elsewhere.

    Fortifications are set up using the same rules as the rest of the army, does that mean it becomes infantry during deployment so you can't deploy any unit on it as that would be violating the 1" rule?


    "As-if, counts-as, etc are not the same as using the rules as stated elsewhere."
    Incorrect. As I said. Look at the FAQs for 6th, 5th, and 4th. Every single time this has come up, GW has ruled to 'use the rules stated elsewhere'.

    "Fortifications are set up using the same rules as the rest of the army, does that mean it becomes infantry during deployment so you can't deploy any unit on it as that would be violating the 1" rule?"
    I see what you are trying to do. How robust is this thought process?
    Well initially, your question is completely bogus. What rules are you replacing? Any? None. There are no other rules to be replaced. There is only the setup rules.

    Walker Movement rules are being replaced.

    Tank Trap—Vehicles are Impassable. Impassable is a movement restriction. So, you look at the Vehicle Movement rules. There are no Vehicle Movement Rules for Walkers.

    Walkers Movement rules are in Infantry. You have replaced the entry. You cannot find in the Infantry section anywhere that says vehicles. It is simply not there.

    The walker then can move as normal.
    Last edited by Tynskel; 08-01-2014 at 03:54 PM.
    QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "

  7. #77

    Default

    Please can we just job this thread now?

    It's getting tedious.

    RAW - Walkers remain vehicles at all times, but move in the same way as Infantry. Tank Traps are impassable, as all non-skimmer vehicles treat them as such. Walkers are Vehicles. Ipso facto, impassable.

    Please it/us out of our misery.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  8. #78
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Durham, NH
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mystery View Post
    Please can we just job this thread now?

    It's getting tedious.

    RAW - Walkers remain vehicles at all times, but move in the same way as Infantry. Tank Traps are impassable, as all non-skimmer vehicles treat them as such. Walkers are Vehicles. Ipso facto, impassable.

    Please it/us out of our misery.
    You need a citation for that, because I have one that says you have replaced the movement rules with Infantry rules, and the Impassable refers to vehicle movement.


    This is why I have always laughed when someone says 'raw' raw what? All the rules work together. The Tank Trap calls: Battlefield debris, terrain, movement that's 3 sets of rules! And we haven't even gotten to the specific cases yet!

    So someone saws raw, they gotta list all the rules, and how they interact. That's RAW. That's using the 'rules as written' not 'rule as written'
    Last edited by Tynskel; 08-01-2014 at 04:02 PM.
    QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "

  9. #79
    Occuli Imperator
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Mercia
    Posts
    18,062

    Default

    Sorry, that was a typo, yes as I have said a number of times counts-as, as-if etc words which are replacing things they assume the properties, that is a none issue.

    What are the Walker Movement rules? The ones that are being replaced? The ones you go on to say don't exist? How can you replace something that doesn't exist? So, surely it is just simply, they move in the same way as the basic rules, rather than re-iterate it.

    Vehicles are a unit type, not Impassable.

    You do not replace the entry, it doesn't tell you to do that. It just tells you that walkers can move up to 6", ignore difficult terrain, but still takes tests for dangerous terrains.

    Using a rule or rules does not replace a unit type.
    Fan of Fuggles | Derailment of the Wolfpack of Horsemen | In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

  10. #80

    Default

    Citation? Rulebook. Job jobbed. No mention of 'counts as' at all. You want a quote? I'll grab my book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000; The Rules, Pp 90, paragraph 3, subheading 'Moving Walkers'
    Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry. They can move 6" in the Movement phase, Run in the Shooting phase and charge in the Assault phase, just as Infantry can. Difficult terrain affects walkers just as it does Infantry, and only counts as dangerous terrain if it would so for Infantry. If Walkers fail a Dangerous Terrain test, they are immobilised. Unlike Infantry, a Walker has a facing, which influences where it can fire (see right) and its Armour Value when fired at
    You with us so far? No mention of 'counts as'. Wording is 'using the movement rules for infantry'. Not 'as if they were infantry' either. This takes out your main point by cunning and underhanded application of what is actually in the rulebook, not what you would like to be in the rulebook.

    So, that bit is job jobbed. Onto the Tank Trap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000; The Rules, Pp 109 Battlefield Debris, Tank Traps subheading
    Tank traps are impassable terrain to non-Skimmer vehicles, dangerous terrain to Bikes, and open ground for other units. A model in cover behind a tank trap as a 4+ cover save
    .

    So. Specifically mentions how it interacts with the various units. At all time, a Walker has the unit designation 'Vehicle, Walker'. Check the exceptions for Tank Traps - And it's impassable terrain. That's it.

    No 'count as'. No 'as if'. Nothing that you are bringing up is mentioned, and therefore, not relevant to the discussion.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •